Rather than elaborating with profuse dissertational wording describing not simply styles and fashions implied by the title of this piece, plus practical call for thoughtful and responsible consistently-decent appearance in general public view whatever the season of the year, pictorial snapshots of pertinent Scripture verses with corresponding lexicon-meaning elaboration (involving hairstyles, armwear, legwear, and feetwear) are shown below.

We start by examining year-round HAIRSTYLES as to what by inference is acceptable to show in general public view in stark contrast to what is lasciviously indecent (i.e. pornographic) to flaunt in questionable innocence and ignorance or instead with blatant defiant belligerence, whether subtly and silently, or instead overtly. The first passage of Scripture considered concerning improper hairstyle is Numbers 5:18 in the Old Testament of The HOLY BIBLE:

Notice the selected words identified alphanumerically as H6544 and H7218. Key words used in the lexicon explanation are to loosen hair and shake the head.

Certain in-this-case-faulty bible translations (e.g. the KJV, NIV, etc.) instead convey the idea of merely "uncovering the head" in a sort of polite removal of a scarf, shawl, or cap on the head without messing up the hair. Not so! What is intended is what the Revised Standard Version and New American Standard Version instead describe as unbind the woman's hair and loosening the woman's hair.

Such unbinding and unloosening is not for sexually-erotic stimulation or sensual gratification, but rather as a condemnatory accusation of suspected adulterous infidelity on the part of the woman involved. It is, in essence, to shame and punish her by the local priest loosening her hair.

The next Scripture considered concerning improper hairstyle is Song of Solomon 7:5:

Lamentably, both the KJV, the NIV, and other in-this-case-incorrect bible translation simply state the wrong word "hair" instead of the flowing locks loose long hair (i.e. mopheaded, with hair hanging below mouth-level) phenomenon.

This time, the loose long hair described IS indeed meant to be erotically captivating and sensuously enjoyed...but not intended to be exhibited indiscriminately as lewd and lurid, non-asked-for, street-gutter wastewater to and against everyone in "general" public view (that is, mixed-gender view, as not presently belonging in marriage to the mopheaded one) - but only to the mophead's own husband in the secluded privacy of their bedroom or whatever hidden enclosure sexual interaction with him alone in marriage typically takes place.

The final Scripture considered concerning improper hairstyle is First Corinthians 11:15-16:

The New Testament of the RSV and NASV are deplorably lacking accuracy in many vital verses, but which the scholar can compensate for by exploring and carefully examining the KJV and KJV-type Bibles (such as the KJ21, NKJV, etc.).

That is because certain RSV and NASV translators who concocted the misrepresentation involving those verses changed and/or omitted words (in striking contrast to the KJV-type Bibles), basing their errancy on such significantly-corrupt Greek texts as the Westcott-Hort, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, UBS, Aland-Metzger, and Nestle texts.

In contrast, the King James Version and KJV-type Bibles based their English wording on Received Text of such faithful men as Erasmus, Beza, Elzevir, Stephens, etc. which texts were finally synthesized into THE inerrant Greek Text of the New Testament by F.H.A. Scrivener in 1894 and now known as the Trinitarian Greek Text available from Baker Books of Grand Rapids MI, Sovereign Grace Publishing of Lafayette IN, and Hendrickson Publishing of Peabody MA.

Why this webpage author mentioned that is because the studious webpage reader will notice that some translation use the words "instead of" rather than "for" (a head-covering veil) in First Corinthians 11:15.....and use the words "no such" rather than "no other" (custom) in First Corinthians 11:16. Clearly, the RSV is in error by their use of the words "no other" (instead of "no such") in their mis-rendition of and against that verse.

It appears that author Paul was conveying the idea that it is not the custom of the churches of God for a woman to regard her glorious loose long hair as sufficient or adequate as a prayer-covering veil. That would especially be true in general-public (both-genders) view, as within a church congregation during worship services and/or church-picnic luncheons.

Now to be considered is Second Samuel 13:18 (such as rendered in the here-significantly-correct RSV and NASV) involving proper armwear as opposed to sleeveslessly baring naked ARMS in mixed-gender general public view:

Tragically, the KJV and KJV-type bibles plus the NIV completely miss the point intended by the Scriptural author (informing us of the long-sleeved full-length dress or gown traditionally worn by royal young ladies) - when they instead absurdly and ridiculously refer to a "multi-colored" garment. The soles-to-feet inclusion stated in the lexicon explanation speaks for itself on that one......and brief apostate wording of "divers colours" was committed and not "performed" by the imperfect human lexicon source because of demonic brainwashing and satanic duress from arms-baring slut-like plus patsy perverts.

We next get to LEGS not simply of a "virgin daughter of Babylon" but (by imitating example) ALL women with legs, which erotically-shapely-and-enticing legs are sometimes or usually bared (immodestly, and ignorantly or deliberately) during warm weather with shorts of various lengths, slitted skirts, and swimwear....which legs instead should always be completely covered with long opaque skirt, non-tight slacks, or equivalent which hide the legs in general public (mixed-gender) view.

The Scripture cited is Isaiah 47:2 in the context of Isaiah 47:1-3 as follows:

Last but not least are FEET (of human toddlers and older aged females) which -instead of being partially bared with socksless sandals or flip-flops especially during warm weather - should be COMPLETELY covered with opaque socks, shoes, or boots in mixed-gender general-public view. Scripture references involving that consist of Song of Solomon 7:1 where the word footsteps or equivalent is shown - instead of the overly-graphic and overly-explicit word feet.....and Jeremiah 2:25 in before-and-after context as shown below:

Words alone are fine and create a comprehensible framework for both universal verbal and written intellectual description and evaluation, but that mere abstract collection of English letters can and many times should be supplemented by photo examples of actual-person modesty which should be the noble and respectable overwhelming rule rather than the aberrant minority exception - contrary to the immodesty so presently widespread and prevalent:

Did the Lord originally intend that men and women, boys and girls (of any and every age and race) roam around NUDE publicly?

After all, He DID create Adam and Eve TOTALLY naked (Genesis 2:25). Moreover, He did not - at that time - give them the Sacred-66 HOLY BIBLE to inform them how wickedly naughty is was to appear publicly pornographic without any clothes on (whether for "doctor's exam," nude-dance-stripping exhibitionism, sunbathing, swimming, gymnastics, or whatever).

The one act of disobedience (relating to eating that forbidden fruit from "that tree") indeed brought death - both initial and more permanent - contrary to the Serpent's irrationalized lie. Part of that "death" involved a separation away from and innocent perception ofpublic human nudity.

It is difficult for this author to imagine what it would have been like had Eve and Adam (in THAT GENDER order, by the way, per First Timothy 2:14), not sinned. I myself (like other humans) - in all honesty and frankness - react erotically (covertly and overtly) when encountering the naked opposite sex.

Apparently, however, the word "naked" was, at first, perhaps never intended to be a part of human vocabulary. God asked forbidden-fruit-filled Adam: "Who told you that you were naked?" (Genesis chapter 3)

Furthermore, as the Lord intended (by Genesis 1:28 command) for humans to "be fruitful and multiply" (i.e. have sexual connections and reproduce offspring), one wonders if there wasn't some pre-Fall factor which was involved with some at least temporary and occasional "desire" or state of mind resulting in temporary and occasional sexual conjugation among those who would have always been casually nude publicly.

Whatever there was, disobedience-caused 'death' of a most misfortunate kind completely obliterated that. Since then, up to now, and to the ages of the ages, public nudity was, is, and eternally will be either erotically enticing or pornographic repulsive, dirty, and expensive (think about the myriad pricey fashions and styles for all sorts of clothes....and with the harsh climactic weather changes since the Garden of Eden, some clothes are vital for survival).

After Adam and Eve transgressed, they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves "aprons" (Genesis 3:7). Go ahead and guess what body parts of theirs were still exposed for shame by such primitive insufficiency!

When the Lord saw them and their genital underwear, did He reprimand them and promptly demand that they remove such needlessness to once again go totally naked? He did NOT, but instead "made for [them] garments of skins, and clothed them" (Genesis 3:21).

[ Incidentally, for you spiritist and vegetarian animal worshippers: "skins" of WHAT ]?

Following all that, God gave general-public humans the Holy Bible - which is in complete and understandable accord with the shame-about-being-publicly-naked mentality of everyone from our ancestral parents to us modern folk on....along with Scriptural inferences and insinuations to desire and need to completely (but in private) temporally and occasionally expose our entire bodies to certain ones of the opposite sex we are presently married with, for all sorts of sexual positioning and copulation. But gone forever is PUBLICLY-displayed innocent, wholesome, healthy, benign, general-public-view display of sensual phenomena such as:

A host of Scripture verses reiterate the un-acceptability (not "non"-acceptability, in this case) of public nudity (e.g. Leviticus 18, Ezekiel 16 and 23, Jeremiah 2, Hosea 1, 1st Timothy 2:8-9, and many more).

Yet, non-pictorial (i.e. non-illustrated) plus non-obscenely-titillating descriptions and legitimate poetically-graphic admiration of private spousal body-parts beauty are profusely and righteously portrayed in the (again, NON-lewd and NON-licentious) Old-Testament Song of Solomon..... which is appropriate reading to and for ALL ages of human beings -- as is the remainder of the entire HOLY BIBLE.

For example, the King James Version (KJV) and some other recent translations MIS-state Song of Solomon 7:5. In that Canticles passages, is the husband merely sensuously describing and longing for his bride's "hair" -- or is he instead alluding to the [sensuous] "flowing locks" of her hair as being as beautiful as 'Carmel' and 'purple' with which 'the king' is 'captivated?'

Strong's Word# 1803 for the previously-mentioned word in question within the inerrant ben-Asher Hebrew Received Text of the Old Testament is defined as:

(1) "locks hanging down," by The Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament.....(2) "hair hanging down" by The New Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew/English Lexicon....(3) "unbound hair" by The William Holladay Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament.

All this, of course, quite understandably correlates with demonic country, pop, and rock songs which blatantly tells gals to "kick off their shoes and let their hair down" Literally! (Obviously preparing for sexual display and contact, probably in a non-marital context).
NO pictorial descriptions of THAT are now needed for elaboration - but instead just the opposite!: